3 Who perhaps visited Tyre himself at this time, according | finally dealing with so troublesome a matter. He desired peace, to an allusion in Ast. Aceph. xii., see Sievers, Lid. p. 131. __| and had not lost his faith in councils. Hefele tollows Socrates 4 The conduct of Constantine will appear fairly consistent if| i. 29, in his error as to the date of the discovery of Arsenius we suppose that after ordering the investigation at Antioch, spr. | (4. Tr. it, 2x). Eee,;: (332?) he received proofs (333) of the falsehood of the Arsenius I p. 107: Kuseb. V.C. iv. 43, calls them the lairest of God's story, but that, finding that the complaints were constantly re- youthful flock.’ ‘Lhe Council of Sardica in 343 describes them as newed, and that Ath. refused to meet his accusers at Czsarea, | ‘ ungodly and foolish youths,’ Hil. Frag. ii., cl. pp. 120, 122. he yielded to the suggestion (Eus. Nic.?) that the assembly of so 3 Soz. ii, 25. But Callinicus was a Meletian all along: pp. 132, many bishops at Jerusalem might be a valuable opportunity for ' 137) 517+ xl PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER IL, § 5.
ee ee ee turned up his cloak and shewed that one hand at least was there. There was a moment of suspense, artfully managed by Athanasius. Then the other hand was exposed, and the accusers were requested to point out whence the third had been cut off (Socr. i. 29). This was too much for John Arcaph, who precipitately fled (so Socr., he seems to have gone to Egypt with the couriers mentioned below, cf p. 142). But the Eusebians were made of sterner stuff: the whole affair was a piece of magic; or there had been an attempt to mutder Arsenius, who had hid himself from fear. At any rate Athanasius must not be allowed to clear himself so easily. Accordingly, in order partly to gain time and partly to get up a more satisfactory case, they prevailed on Count Dionysius, in the face of strong remonstrances from Athanasius (p. 138), to despatch a commission of enquiry to the Mareotis in order to ascertain the real facts about Ischyras. The nature of the commission may be inferred, firstly, from its composition, four strong Arians and two (Theodore of Heraclea, and Macedonius of Mopsuestia) reactionaries; secondly, from the fact that they took Ischyras with them, but left Macarius behind in custody; thirdly, from the fact that couriers were sent to Egypt with four days’ start, and with an urgent message to the Meletians to collect at once In as large numbers as possible at Irene, so as to impress the commissioners with the importance of the Meletian community at that place. The Egyptian bishops present at Tyre handed in stronglyworded protests to the Council, and to Count Dionysius, who received also a weighty remonstrance from the respected Alexander, Bishop of Thessalonica. This drew forth from him an energetic protest to the Eusebians (p. 142 sg.) against the composition of the commission.
His protest was not, however, enforced in any practical way, and the Egyptians thereupon appealed to the Emperor (éd.). Athanasius himself escaped in an open boat with four of his bishops, and found his way to Constantinople, where he arrived on October 30...The Emperor was out riding when he was accosted by one of a group of pedestrians. He could scarcely credit his eyes and the assurance of his attendants that the stranger was none other than the culprit of Tyre. Much annoyed at his appearance, he refused all communication; but the persistency of Athanasius and the reasonableness of his demand prevailed. The Emperor wrote to Jerusalem to summon to his presence all who had been at the Council of Tyre (pp. 105, 145).
Meanwhile the MAREOTIC COMMISSION had proceeded with its task. Their report was kept secret, but eventually sent to Julius of Rome, who handed it over to Athanasius in 339 (p. 143). Their enquiry was carried on with the aid of Philagrius the prefect, a strong Arian sympathiser, whose guard pricked the witnesses if they failed to respond to the hints of the commissioners and the threats of the prefect himself. The clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis were excluded from the court, and catechumens, Jews:and heathen, none of whom could properly have been present on the occasion, were examined as to the interruption of the eucharistic service by Macarius (p. 119). Even with these precautions the evidence was not all that could be wished. To begin with, it had all taken place on an ordinary week-day, when there would be no Communion (pp. 115, 125, 143); secondly, when Macarius came in Ischyras was in bed; thirdly, certain witnesses whom Athanasius had been accused of secreting came forward in evidence of the contrary (p. 107). The prefect consoled himself by letting loose the violence of the heathen mob (p. 108) against the ‘virgins’ of the Church. The catholic party were helpless; all they could do was to protest in writing to the commission, the council, and the prefect (pp. 138—140. The latter protest is dated 1oth of Thoth, i.e. Sep. 8, 335, Diocletian leap-year).
The commission returned to Tyre, where the council passed a resolution (Soz. ii. 25) deposing Athanasius. They then proceeded to Jerusalem for the Dedication? of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here Arius with certain others (probably including Euzoius) was received to communion on the strength of the confession of faith he had presented to Constantine a few years before, and the assembled bishops drew up a synodal letter announcing the fact to Egypt and the Church at large (pp. 144, 460). At this juncture the summons from Constantine arrived. The terms of it shewed that the Emperor was not disposed to hear more of the broken chalice or the murdered Arsenius: but the Eusebians were not at a loss. They advised the bishops to go quietly to their homes, while five of the inner circle, accompanied by Eusebius of Czesarea, who had a panegyric to deliver in the imperial presence, responded to the summons of royalty. They made short work of Athanasius. The whole farrago of charges examined at Tyre was thrown aside. He had threatened to starve the mavevdaluwv watpis, the chosen capital of Constantine, by stopping the grain ships which regularly left Alexandria every autumn. It was in vain for Athanasius to protest that he had neither the means nor the power to do anything of the kind.
“You are a rich man,’ replied Eusebius of Nicomedia, ‘and can do whatever you like.’ The Emperor was touched in a sore place3, He promptly ordered the banishment of Athanasius to Treveri, whither he started, as it would seem, on Feb. 5, 336 (pp. 105, 146, 503, note 11). The friends of Athanasius professed to regard the banishment as an act of imperial clemency, in view of what might have been treated as a capital matter, involving as it did the charge of treason (p. 105); and Constantine IT., immediately after his father’s death, stated (pp. 146, 272, 288) in a letter (written before he became Augustus in Sept. 337) that he had been sent to Treveri merely to keep him out of danger, and that Constantine had been prevented only by death from carrying out his intention of restoring him. These charitable constructions need not be rudely ignored; but in all probability the anxiety to be rid of a cause of disturbance was at least one motive with the peace-loving Emperor. At 2 The Greek Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 3 The philosopher Sopater had heen put to death on a similar 13} the Chron. Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But | charge a few years before, D.C.B. i. 631. if the Mareotic Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.), these dates are untrustworthy.
DEATH OF CONSTANTINE. END OF FIRST EXILE. i any rate the Eusebians could not obtain the imperial sanction to their proposed election of a successor (Pistus?) to anaes oe his return after the death of Constantine he found his see waiting for him unoccupied (Aol. ¢.
The close of the Tricennalia was made the occasion of a council at Constantinople (winter 335—336). Marcellus was deposed for heresy and Basil nominated to the see of Ancyra, Eusebius of Czesarea undertaking to refute the ‘new Samosatene.’ Other minor depositions were apparently carried out at the same time, and several Western bishops, including Protogenes of Sardica, had reason later on to repent of their signatures to the proceedings (Hil. Aragm. iii.)
Death: of Arius. From Jerusalem Arius had gone to Alexandria, but (Soz. ii. 29) had not succeeded in obtaining admission to the Communion of the Church there. Accordingly he repaired to the capital about the time of the Council just mentioned. The Eusebians resolved that here at any rate he should not be repelled. Arius appeared before the Emperor and satisfied him by a sworn profession of orthodoxy, and a day was fixed for his reception to communion. The story of the distress caused to the aged bishop Alexander is well known. He was heard to pray in the church that either Arius or himself might be taken away before such an outrage to the faith should be permitted. As a matter of fact Arius died suddenly the day before his intended reception. His friends ascribed his death to magic, those of Alexander to the judgment of God, the public generally to the effect of excitement on a diseased heart (Soz. l. c.). Athanasiusy while taking the second view, describes the occurrence with becoming sobriety and reserve (pp. 233, 565). Alexander himself died very soon after, and Paul was elected in his place (D.C.B. art. MACEDONIUS (2)), but was soon banished on some unknown charge, whereupon ee of Nicomedia was translated to the capital see (between 336 and 340; date uncertain. Cf. D.C.B. ii.
Of the sojourn of Athanasius at Treveri, the noble home of the Emperors on the banks of the Mosel, we know few details, but his presence there appeals to the historic imagination. (See D.C.B. i. 186 a.) He cannot have been there much above a year. He kept the Easter festival, probably of 336, certainly of 337, in the still unfinished Church (p. 244: the present Cathedral is said to occupy the site of what was then an Imperial palace: but the main palace is apparently represented by the ‘ Roman baths).’ He was not suffered to want (p. 146): he had certain Egyptian brethren with him; and found a sympathetic friend in the good Bishop Maximinus (cf. p. 239). The tenth festal letter, § 1, preserves a short extract from a letter written from Trier to his clergy.
Constantine died at Nicomedia, having previously received baptism from the hands of Eusebius, on Whit-Sunday, May 22, 337. None of his sons were present, and the will is said to have been entrusted to the Arian chaplain mentioned above (p. xxxiv). Couriers carried the news to the three Czsars, and at a very moderate+ rate of reckoning, it may have been known at Trier by about June 4. Constantine, as the eldest son, probably expected more from his father’s will than he actually obtained. At any rate, on June 17 he wrote a letter to the people and clergy of Alexandria, announcing the restoration of their bishop in pursuance of an intention of his father’s, which only death had cut short. Constantius meanwhile hastened (from the East, probably Antioch) to Constantinople (D.C.B.1i. 651): he too had expectations, for he was his father’s favourite. The brothers met at Sirmium, and agreed upon a division of the Empire, Constantius taking the East, Constans Italy and Illyricum, and Constantine the Gauls and Africa. On Sep. g they formally assumed the title Augustus 5. Athanasius had apparently accompanied Constantine to Sirmium, and on his way eastward met Constantius at Viminacium (p. 240), his first interview with his future persecutor. He presently reached Constantinople (p. 272), and on his way southward, at Caesarea in Cappadocia, again met Constantius, who was hurrying to the Persian frontier. On Nov. 23 he reached Alexandria amid great rejoicings (pp. 104, 503, Fest. Znd.
x.), the clergy especially ‘esteeming that the happiest day of their lives.’ But the happiness was marred by tumults (Soz. il. 2, 5, Hil.
Fragm. iii. 8, Fest. Ind, xi., next year ‘again’), which were, however, checked by the civil power, the prefect Theodorus being, apparently, favourable to Athanasius (pp. 102, 527, note 2). The festal letter for 338 would seem to have been finished at Alexandria, but the point is not absolutely clear. Here begins his second period of ‘quiet,’ of one year, four months and twenty-four days, ie., from Athyr 27 (Nov. 23), 337, to Pharmuthi 21 (April 16), 339.
§6. Renewal of Troubles, Second Exile. LPistus and Gregory, culmination of Eusebian intrigue. Rome and Sardica. (337—-346).
(1). The stay of Athanasius at Alexandria was brief and troubled. The city was still disturbed by Arian malcontents, who had the sympathy of Jews and Pagans, and it was reported that the monks, and especially the famous hermit Antony, were on their side. This 4 The courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could, in the time specified; see Gibbon quoted p. rr5, note 1, and for carry a message from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, other examples, Gwatkin, p. 137. i about 25c miles a day, Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight | __ 5 ‘This date is certain (Gwatk., 108, note), but the meeting at miles an hour for 12} hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from | Sirmium may possibly fall in the following summer, Nicomedia to Treveri would be easily covered by a horseman | xiii PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II. § 6 (1).
r impression, however, was dissipated by the appearance of the great Ascetic himself, who, at the urgent request of the orthodox (pp 214 sg., 503), consented to shew himself for two days in the uncongenial atmosphere of the city. ‘The mystery and marvellous reputation, which even then surrounded this much-talked-of character, attracted Christians and heathen alike, in large numbers, to hear and see him, and, if possible, to derive some physical benefit from his touch. He denounced Arianism as the worst of heresies, and was solemnly escorted out of town by the bishop in person. As an annalist toward the close of the century tells us, ‘ Antony, the great leader, came to Alexandria, and though he remained there only two days, shewed himself : ar. wonderful in many things, and healed many. He departed on the third of Messori’ (i.e., Meanwhile the Eusebians were busy. In the new Emperor Constantius, the Nicomedian found a willing patron: probably his translation to the See of Constantinople falls at this time. It was represented to ie Emperor that the restoration of the exiled Bishops in 337, and especially that of Athanasius, was against ' ecclesiastical order. Men deposed by a Synod of the Church had presumed to return to their sees under the sanction of the secular authority. This was technically true, but the proceedings at Tyre were regarded by Athan.
as depriving that Synod of any title to ecclesiastical authority (pp. 104, 271). It is impossible to accept au pied de la lettre the protests on either side against state interference with the Church: both parties moe willing to use it on their own side, and to protest against its use by their opponents. Constantine had summoned the Council of Niczea, had (Soz. i. 17) fixed the order of its proceedings, and had enforced its decisions by civil penalties. The indignant rhetoric of Hist. Ar. 52 (p. 289) might mutates nominibus have been word for word the remonstrance of a Secundus or Theonas against the great Ecumenical Synod of Christendom. At Tyre, Jerusalem, and CP., the Eusebians had their turn, and again at Antioch, 333—341. The Council of Sardica relied on the protection of Constans, that of Philippopolis on Constantius. The reign of the latter was the period of Arian triumph; that of Theodosius secured authority to the Catholics. The only consistent opponents of civil intervention in Church affairs were the Donatists in the West and the Eunomians or later Arians in the East (with the obscure exception of Secundus and Theonas, the original Arians cannot claim the compliment paid by Fialon, p- 115, to their independence). To the Donatists is due the classical protest against Erastianism, ‘ Quid Imperatori cum ecclesia’ (D. C. B. i. 652). Believing, as the present writer does, that the Donatist protest expresses a true principle, and that the subjection of religion to the State is equally mischievous with that of the State to the Church, it is impossible not to regret these consequences of the conversion of Constantine. But allowance must be made for the sanguine expectations with which the astonishing novelty of a Christian Emperor filled men’s minds. It was only as men came to realise that the civil sword might be drawn in support of heresy that they began to reflect on the impropriety of allowing to even a Christian Emperor a voice in Church councils.
Athanasius was the first to grasp this clearly. The voice of protest? sounds in the letter of the Egyptian Synod of 338-9; throughout his exiles he steadily regarded himself, and was regarded by his flock, as the sole rightful Bishop of Alexandria, and continued to issue his Easter Letters from first to last. At the same time, it must be admitted that if he was right in returning to Alexandria in 337 without restoration by a Synod, he could not logically object to the return of Eusebius and Theognis (p. 104), who had not been deposed at Niczea, but banished by the Emperor. The ‘echnical rights of Chrestus and Amphion (/. ¢.) were no better than those of Gregory or George. The spiritual elevation of Athanasius over the head and shoulders of his opponents is plain to ourselves; we see clearly the moral contrast between the councils of Rome and Antioch (340-41), of Sardica and Philippopolis (343), of Alexandria (362) and Seleucia (359). But to men like the Eastern * conservatives ’ the technical point of view necessarily presented itself with great force, and in judging of their conduct we must not assume that it was either ‘ meaningless diabolism’ or deliberate sympathy with Arianism that led so many bishops of good character to see in Athanasius and the other exiles contumacious offenders against Church order. (Iam quite unable to accept M. Fialon’s sweeping verdict upon the majority of Oriental bishops as ‘ weak, vicious, more devoted to their own interests than to the Church,’ &c., p. 116. He takes as literally exact the somewhat turgid rhetorical complaints of Greg. Naz.)
But the Eusebians were not limited to technical complaints. They had stirring accounts to give of the disorders which the return of Athanasius had excited, of the ruthless severity with which they had been put down by the prefect, who was, it was probably added, a mere tool in the hands of the bishop. Accordingly in the course of 338 the subservient Theodorus was recalled, and Philagrius the Cappadocian, who had governed with immense 3 popularity in 335—337 (Fest. Znd. and p. 107 sg.), was sent to fill the office a second time. This was regarded at Alexandria as an Arian’ triumph (see p. 527, note 2). His arrival did not tend to allay the disorders. Old charges against Athanasius were raked up, and a new one added, namely that of embezzlement of the corn appropriated to the support of widows by the imperial bounty. The Emperor appears to have sent a letter of complaint to Athanasius (p. 273), but to have paid little attention to his defence. The Eusebians now ventured to send a bishop of their own to Alexandria in the person of Pistus, one of the original Arian presbyters, who was consecrated by the implacable Secundus. The date of this proceeding is obscure, probably it was conducted in an irregular manner, so as to render it possible to ignore it altogether if, as proved to be the case, a stronger candidate should be necessary. First, however, it was necessary to try the temper of the West.
A deputation consisting of a presbyter Macarius and two deacons, Martyrius and Hesychius, was sent to Julius, bishop of Rome, to lay before him the enormities of Athanasius, Marcellus, Paul, Asclepas and the rest, and to * As he had previously referred the Donatist schism to the | in 334: either the Index or the headings are mistaken. Fot commission of Rome and the Council of Arles. the popularity of Philagrius, see Greg. Naz. Ovat. xxi. 28, 2 But they complain, p. 104, § 8, of coercion not of Erastianism. | who mentions that his reappointment was due to the request of 3 The ordinary time for the entry of the Prefect upon his duties | a deputation from Alex. (this must have come from the Arians!) seems to have been about the end of the Egyptian Year (end | and that the rejoicings which welcomed his return exceeded any of August). Accordingly the prefectures and years in Fest. Znd. | that could have greeted the Emperor, and early equalled those roughly correspond: Philagrius was already Prefect when the | which had welcomed the return of Athanasius himself. But Gre« Mareotic Commission arrived (Aug. 335). According to the head-| gory is a rhetorician 3 see p. 138, and ‘Tillem. viii. 664. ings to the Festal Letters vi., vil., he had superseded Paternus | xliit SECOND EXILE OF ATHANASIUS.
ee ee title of Pistus to the recognition of the Church, But upon hearing of this Athanasius summoned vith “aga ad a ass 338339), and composed a circular letter (pp. 101—110) dealing fully ee oe x ean eae bay! h - ee Bhs manner of his election and the irregularity of his return 4 a aste to Rome, and enlightened the Church there as to the antecedents of Pistus. Next day it was announced that Macarius, ‘in spite of a bodily ailment,’ had decamped in the night. The deacons however remained, and requested Julius to call a council, undertaking that if Athanasius and the Eusebians were confronted all the charges brought by the latter should be made good. This proposal seemed unobjectionable, and Julius wrote inviting all parties to a council at Rome, or some other place to be aa upon (p. 272); his messengers to the Eusebians were the Roman presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus‘, Ps e Bag The ee pee the A eens summer (so it would seem); but no reply was received from Rome ees nee Ae cee ie East until the following January, when they at length started for ‘ o 1 ty reply (answered by Julius, p. 111, sgg.). But before the invitation had reached the Eusebians they had assembled at Antioch, where Constantius was in residence for the winter (laws dated Dec. 27 3 the court there in January? p. 92), repeated the deposition of Athanasius, and appointed Gregory, a Cappadocian, to succeed him. It had become clear that Pistus was a bad candidate; perhaps no formal.
synod could be induced to commit themselves to a man excommunicated at Nica and consecrated by Secundus. At any rate they tried to find an unexceptionable nominee. But their first, Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Emesa, refused the post, and so they came to Gregory 5, a former student of Alexandria, and under personal obligations to its bishop (Greg. Naz. Ov. xxi. 15). _ All was now ready for the blow at Athanasius. It fell in Lent (pp. 94, 503). His position since the arrival of Philagrius had been one of unrest. ‘In this year again,’ says our annalist, there were many tumults. On the xxii Phamenoth (1.e. Sunday, Mar. 18, 339) he was sought after by his persecutors.in the night. On the next morning he fled from the Church of Theonas after he had baptized many. Then on the fourth day (Mar. 22) Gregory the Cappadocian entered the city as bishop’ (fest. Znd. xi.). But Athanasius (p. 95), remained quietly in the town for about four weeks more®. He drew up for circulation ‘throughout the tribes’ (cf Judges xix. 29) a memorandum and appeal, describing the intrusion of Gregory and the gross outrages which had accompanied it. This letter was written on or just after Easter Day (April 15), and immediately after this he escaped from Alexandria and made his way to Rome. The data as to the duration of the periods of ‘ quiet’ and exile fix the date of his departure for Easter Monday, April 16. This absence from Alexandria was his longest, lasting ‘ninety months and three days,’ i.e. from Pharmuthi 21 (April 16) 339 to Paophi 24 (October 21), 346.
(2.) The Szeconp Exrte of Athanasius falls into two sections, the first of four years (p. 239), to the council of Sardica (339—343), the second of three years, to his return in Oct. 346. The odd six months cannot be distributed with certainty unless we can arrive at a more exact result than at present appears attainable for the month and duration of the Sardican synod, In May, 339, Athanasius, accompanied by a few of his clergy (story of the ‘detachment’ of his monk Ammonius in Socr. iv. 23, sub fin.), arrived at Rome. He was within three months followed by Marcellus, Paul of CP., Asclepas, and other exiles who had been restored at the end of 337 but had once more been ejected. Soon after, Carpones, an original Arian of Alexandria, appeared as envoy of Gregory. He confirmed all that had been alleged against Pistus, but failed to convince Julius that his own bishop was anything but an Arian. Meanwhile time wore on, and no reply came from the Eusebians. Athanasius gave himself up to enforced leisure and to the services of the Church. Instead of his usual Easter letter for the following spring, he sent a few lines to the clergy of Alexandria and a letter to his right-hand man, bishop Serapion of Thmuis, requesting him to make the necessary announcement of the season. Gregory made his first attempt (apparently also his last) to fix the Easter Festival, but in the middle of Lent, to the amusement of the public, discovered that a mistake had been made, the correction of which involved his adherents in an extra week of Lenten austerities. We can well imagine that the spectacle of the abstracted asceticism of Ammonius aroused the curiosity and veneration of the Roman Christians, and thus gave an impulse to the ascetic life in the West (see Jerome, cited below, p. r91). That is all we know of the life of Athanasius during the first eighteen months of his stay at Rome.
In the early spring of 340 the presbyters returned (see above) with a letter from a number of bishops, including the Eusebian leaders, who had assembled at Antioch in January. This letter is carefully dissected in the that they still find followers? The most important point of con- 4 It is Jossible, however, that these carried a second letter, | after the arrival of Ath. See pp. 110, 273. }; 5 Gregory shewed his Arianism by employing Ammon as his secretary, see p. 96. The curious parallelism between Gregory and George (z#/r. § 8),—the names differing (in Latin) by a single letter only, both Arians, both Cappadocians, both intruded bishops of Alexandria, both arriving from court, both arriving in Lent, both exercising violence, both charged by Ath. with the storming of churches, with similar scenes of desecration, maltreatment of virgins, &c., in either case,—is one of the strangest examples of history repeating itself within a few years. What wonder that the fifth-century historians confuse the two still further together, and fusion is the alleged murder of Gregory (due to Theodoret), who really died a natural death, It is nune too soon for this timehonoured blunder to do the like. On the inveterate tendency of Georges and Grezovies to coalesce, and exchange names in transcription (to say nothing o. modern typography), see D.C.B. il. pp. 640—650, 778 sq., 798 sg., assim.